Description might need triming.: Non Mammal Mammaries

I set my screen very wide, so it's not too much of an issue for me, but is the description a little long? I could go through and chainsaw it if others think so.

Yes, it's a bit too long.

Seems fine to me, though I tend to consider 'too much information' an oxymoron.

Less "too much information" and more "information getting in the way of a simple definition".

The new description would look something like this:

Look closely at a female reptile, a female amphibian, a female bird, a female fish, a female insect, or a non-primate mammal. You'll doubtless notice the lack of a particular characteristic that is common to female humans.

(Pssst. We mean breasts.)

Most animals do not have human like breasts at all, even if they fall into the category "mammal". Artists tend to oversize the mammaries of characters that do have them or put them in places where they don't belong. Compare the chests bellies of a male and female dog, and you won't find much difference unless she's recently given birth to a litter and is nursing young (that's about the only time she will ever have any vague semblance of what we call "breasts" on humans). Both the size and position of human breasts are likely the results of bipedalism.

Prominent breasts, or lack thereof, is one of the simplest instinctive visual cues for Hominids. Giving all female animals big boobs, or at least a body shape that mimics them, allows for distinction between the sexes without adding glaringly obvious costume tags, a wasp waist, or the more bizarre gender-specific characteristics in some other animals. Another reason for large boobs on Humanoid Animals is of course Fanservice.

If the character is an alien or artificial life form, then it makes a little bit more sense. Aliens have Bizarre Alien Biology after all, and creators of synthoids and such would probably want their "children" to be anthropomorphic enough to fit in. Not to mention that it's easier to design a skin-tight rubber bodysuit with strange textures for use by human actors.

See also Bizarre Sexual Dimorphism, Tertiary Sexual Characteristics, and Feather Fingers.

For those of you not aware, I'm quite active with a chainsaw. Dammit, what's the proper trope instead of Humanoid Animal?

Apparently Humanoid Animals is only available in plural.

edited 22nd Oct '10 12:02:10 AM by Deboss

I think that is currently up for debate in the Petting-Zoo People Thread. [1]

edited 21st Oct '10 4:09:05 PM by Raso

^^ We're working on that right now. It's looking like we need to make it.

Most animals do not have breasts at all, unless they fall into the category "mammal". Artists also tend to oversize the mammaries of characters...

Try instead:

Most animals do not have breasts at all, even if they fall into the category "mammal". Artists tend to oversize the mammaries of characters...

Done.

"do not have human-type breasts" ...

Needs more emphasis on the fiction side of things than justification in real-life reality. *sledgehammers*

edited 21st Oct '10 11:10:46 PM by Stratadrake

Huh? There's fictional reasons for it existing right in the paragraphs. There's not a whole lot of fictional definition of the trope beyond "females of a non mammal species have boobs". There's discussion of why it occurs (identification/fanservice), how it could occur (space aliens, bipedal evolution) and that's about it.

^ Before or after I whacked into it?

Because before, the trope kept switching from fictional to real-life contexts and back again, like Attention Deficit Trope Disorder On Crystal Meth.

E.g, the first paragraph talked about Real Life:

Look closely at a female reptile, a female amphibian, a female bird, a female fish, a female insect, or a non-primate mammal. You'll doubtless notice the lack of a particular characteristic that is common to female humans.

(Pssst. We mean breasts.)

Next paragraph talks about fiction...

Artists also tend to oversize the mammaries of characters that do have them....

...but immediately switches back to reality, mid-paragraph even:

...compare the chests bellies of a male and female dog, and you won't find much difference unless she's recently given birth to a litter and is nursing young (that's about the only time she will ever have any vague semblance of what we call "breasts" on humans) Indeed, try to find the baby-feeding equipment on your pet dog (or cat or pig or rabbit or ferret or mouse or whatever). We'll wait.

At least it gets to the point:

You will not have the same troubles finding the (let's just get it out of the way) boobs on fictional animal characters, especially the most anthropomorphic characters. In this case, all classes of animals are united when it comes to boobage.

...before promptly changing the subject:

Ignore the fact that the very presence of milk-producing glands is why we call them mammals...

It does mention a possible Hand Wave:

...of course, some "anthropomorphic reptiles" might actually be mammals: They are humans with reptilian characteristics rather than reptiles with human characteristics. But, in the cases where the reptiles are really supposed to be reptiles...

With, maybe, some justification from Real Life:

We are going to be very generous here, as there may actually be a reasonable explanation for this. Prominent breasts, or lack thereof, is one of the simplest instinctive visual cues for Hominids. Giving all female animals big boobs, or at least a body shape that mimics them, allows for distinction between the sexes without adding glaringly obvious costume tags, a wasp waist, or the more bizarre gender-specific characteristics in some other animals.

...I'm starting to fall asleep....

Also, in humans big breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. There's at least one hypothesis that humans' bulked-up boobies are the results of bipedalism putting the usual primate attractor of round buttocks out of the eyeline, so selection pressure encouraged a similar structure higher up. Another hypothesis is that, while in other Great apes the mammaries are only swollen when the female is nursing young, in an adult human woman the breasts are full year-round, making it harder for the men to ascertain when the woman has her fertile period each month, so they guard her against rivals the whole time. It isn't the actual mammary glands making page six, in other words.

Poses a hypothetical question:

It's not unreasonable to suppose that certain contortions of nonhuman mammal bodies into more bipedal, humanoid shapes could result in similar adaptations...

But switches right back to reality, mid-paragraph:

...but not all mammals have their mammaries on their chest. Elephant cows have two (and only two) nipples on their chest situated between their front legs, like human women. Normal cows and other hooved mammals, on the other hand, have their teats (with several nipples) between their hinds legs, or dotted in two rows along their bellies. Same with canines, cats and rodents.

FINALLY, after all this meandering it actually gets back to the point of the trope to begin with:

To be fair, the whole point of anthropomorphizing is to endow a non-human creature with human features. If the character is an alien or artificial life form, then it makes a little bit more sense. Aliens have Bizarre Alien Biology after all, and creators of synthoids and such would probably want their "children" to be anthropomorphic enough to fit in. Not to mention that it's easier to design a skin-tight rubber bodysuit with strange textures for use by human actors. It's also easier for the audience to identify with characters with certain fundamental features they recognize as human.

See what I mean?

edited 22nd Oct '10 9:18:32 AM by Stratadrake

Yeah, I remember what was there. I rewrote it up there, I thought you were talking about the new version I was going to put up in a bit.

Hmm. A definte chainsaw on the real-life drivel is good, but we should prominently keep a line about "the whole point of anthropomorphizing is to make a character the audience can identify/emphathize with, and boobs are easy to identify".

edited 22nd Oct '10 1:14:20 PM by Stratadrake

Would a useful notes section be ... useful? It seems the trimming cut down the whys and hows etc.

I don't think this necessitates a Useful Notes. As much as most people would like to read about breasts, I don't think it warrants an entire page.

I also do not think it warrants a page, it's just that a section with why people are doing this with some useful information could be handy.

Something along the lines of people think it's strange that people who are female don't have boobs even if they are reptiles. this might be because of humanities (possible) bipedal evolution so it's a short hand way of explaining that they went through a similar pathway etc.

If it's just because the writer is male a pervert or both it sounds uninteresting and should be cut. If there is a cultural reasoning behind it would it not warrant mentioning?

That's mentioned. Scroll back up to the quoteblock.

My apologies I got caught up in the fictional justification vrs real life justification debate and thought one was up for the chopping block.

Reviewing the article as it is as of this posting it looks just fine to me, it even has it's own laconic page to avoid confusion or Too Long hijinks.

I'll wait until monday to take any action, but I'd appreciate responses, support or disagreement on changing the description.

What you proposed sounds good to me.

I'll have a go at rewriting it to make it shorter and to the point.

In Real Life, aside from our closest cousins, you won't find obvious breasts on any animals other than humans. Even among other mammals (which by definition have mammary glands), they're not obvious.

In fiction, however, it is common practice to include them on species which lack them in the real world. This tends to come as part of the anthropomorphic package. An anthropomorphic character is easier to relate to, and giving them breasts, even when their real-world template lacks them, is an effective visual shorthand for "this character is female".

Some works will attempt to Hand Wave this through various sci-fi or fantasy origins, giving the characters Bizarre Alien Biology, or mentioning some form of similar evolutionary path taken by the characters in question.

Most works, however, won't even bother trying to explain things, assuming the audience won't even care (and usually, they don't).

There. How's that?

edited 23rd Oct '10 12:48:33 AM by Roxor

I like Deboss's version the best so far.

^^ That strips it down too far, somehow. It's lifeless; flat.

Deboss's looks fine to me.